‘Dana Feinsohn, trainee solicitor in the litigation and arbitration team at CMS, comments on the decision handed down by the UK Supreme Court in the matter of Goldman Sachs International v Novo Banco S.A. [2018] UKSC 34.’

‘For the purposes of this Practice Guidance, ‘international child abduction proceedings’ are proceedings in which the return of a child is sought under any of the following:
Introduction
(a) The Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 25 October 1980 (‘the 1980 Hague Convention’);
(b) The Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (‘the 1996 Hague Convention’);
(c) Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility (‘the Council Regulation’);
(d) The High Court’s power to make an order returning the child to another jurisdiction or to make an order for the return of the child to this jurisdiction (‘the inherent jurisdiction’).’

‘Lawyers have welcomed with relief the declaration on ‘legal certainty and clarity’ – including mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments – in the Brexit phase 1 agreement reached on Friday. However the Law Society cautioned that the ‘real complexity’ of the deal lies ahead.’

‘In its recent decision in Koza Ltd v Akcil [2017] EWCA Civ 1609, the Court of Appeal interpreted the scope of Article 24 (2) Brussels I Recast, which governs exclusive jurisdiction “in proceedings which have as their object the validity of the constitution, the nullity or dissolution of companies or other legal persons or associations of natural or legal persons, or the validity of the decisions of their organs, the courts of the Member State in which the company, legal person or association has its seat”.’

‘Last week, Lord Sumption delivered the majority decision of the Supreme Court on Benkharbouche v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs: Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Libya v Janah. The case would have been heard in December of last year, but for the small matter of Miller, which caused the hearing to be moved to June of this year. Brexit and Miller, however, do not only seem to have affected the timing of the hearing. They have also affected its importance. What might have been originally anticipated as a potentially defining moment – where the Supreme Court confirmed that the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms could be used as a stand-alone cause of action to disapply primary legislation and explained how this could be achieved – was translated into an almost blasé statement by the court that ‘a conflict between EU law and English domestic law must be resolved in favour of the former, with the latter being disapplied; whereas the remedy in the case of inconsistency with Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention is a declaration of incompatibility.’ What might once have seemed controversial has become run of the mill. What has led to the casual acceptance of ‘disapplication’ of a UK statute; and what will happen to disapplication – and the Charter – post-Brexit?’

‘The first defendant in the first of two claims entered into a licence with the claimant in respect of a portfolio of patents, including a US patent, concerning tocilizumab, an immunosuppressive drug. The claimant sought, inter alia, a declaration that it was not obliged to continue to pay royalties under the licence in respect of its tocilizumab products. The defendants alleged that, although framed as a claim for a declaration relating to a contract, a part of the proceedings, in substance, concerned not only the scope but also the validity of the US patent. Accordingly, consideration of the claim would infringe the territorial limits of the courts jurisdictional powers and constitute an affront to comity (“the Moçambique rule”) and/or the foreign act of state doctrine, which militated against the English court determining issues relating to sovereign acts of a foreign state.’

‘The case of GE v. SSWP (ESA) [2017] UKUT 145 (ACC) sets out how the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 (since replaced with the 2016 version), are in some areas, more generous than EU law itself by concluding that an initial right of residence or status as a job-seeker could count towards permanent residence for an EEA national.’

‘Britain’s financial watchdog has launched a review of the mortgage market that will probe the “inducements” routinely paid to brokers and other industry players, to see whether consumers are losing out as a result.’

‘In Rai v Ministry of Defence (HH Judge Mark Gargan sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, judgment handed down on 9 May 2016), the Court had to determine whether the Rome II Regulation 864/2007 applied and to identify what was the proper law of the tort (Alberta law being the law of the place of the accident, or English law). The Claimant was a serving Ghurkha who, as part of Adventurous Training, was sent to Canada. In Canada he received training provided by a Canadian company (“Lazy H Trail Limited”) contracted to provide services, under a contract governed by Alberta law, for the benefit of the British Army. The circumstances of the accident were that the Claimant was kicked by a horse on the first day of training, as he attempted to clean the horse’s hoof, thereby suffering a head injury. The Claimant brought a claim for breach of a non-delegable duty of care in negligence against the Ministry of Defence.’

‘The claimant reinsurer, a German company, engaged the defendant, a Swiss company, to provide loss-adjusting services in joint instruction with another reinsurer, AIG, a New Zealand-based company, which was already instructing the defendant. When a dispute arose between the claimant and the defendant concerning the performance of its loss-adjusting services, the claimant brought proceedings in England on the basis that it had contracted with the defendant on terms contained in a master agreement made between the defendant and another AIG company which provided for application of English law and the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts. The claimant served the proceedings on the defendant, relying on article 23 of the Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 2007. The defendant, denying that the terms of the master agreement had been incorporated into its contract with the claimant, applied to set aside service of the proceedings for want of jurisdiction.’

‘In a recent case, the English Commercial Court has determined that a claim in restitution based on unjust enrichment was governed by English law pursuant to EU Regulation 864/2007 (Rome II) and not the law of Geneva.’

‘Stuart Clark, a solicitor at The International Family Law Group LLP, reports on a recent Irish case which could have important implications for the priority of divorce proceedings in international cases.’

‘The English court had power to apply the doctrine of forum non conveniens in a purely domestic context, exercising the court’s wide general case management powers in CPR rr 3.1(2)(m) and 3.3, and therefore could strike out or stay proceedings brought in England where Scotland was the natural and more appropriate forum.’

‘The primary limitation period of three years under Iraqi limitation law applied to claims in tort brought in the English High Court by Iraqi civilians in respect of alleged unlawful detention and ill-treatment by British armed forces while those forces were in Iraq between March 2003 and the end of 2008.’

‘R (ota Davis et al) v. Secretary of State for Home Department [2015] EWHC 2092 – 17 July 2015. When a domestic Act of Parliament is in conflict with EU law, EU law wins. And when a bit of the EU Charter (given effect by the Lisbon Treaty) conflicts with an EU Directive, the EU Charter wins. Which is why the Divisional Court found itself quashing an Act of Parliament on Friday – at the behest of four claimants, including two MPs, the Tories’ David Davis and Labour’s Tom Watson.’

Sign up for the daily email

“So many sources, so little time…THE leading resource for keeping lawyers on top of the legal news, commentary and authorities, Current Awareness from the expert Inner Temple librarians, is indispensable. “